c177046d   
   XPost: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: always@ask.questions   
      
   On 29/12/2012 4:07 AM, M Purcell wrote:   
   > On Dec 28, 9:20 am, TheInquirer  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> so what is the nature of "evidence" without an ontology?   
   >>   
   > Evidence is what winnows the chaff of ontology from the grain of   
   > knowledge.   
      
      
   is it what the passage is implying?   
      
      
   here's a larger except Immortalist's quote from { Philosophical Problems   
   and Arguments: An Introduction by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George   
   Sotiros Pappas } again   
      
    > Imagine that all people are controlled by the braino and that the   
    > machine is run by some evil being, Dr. Know, who plots to keep us   
    > completely in error through hallucinations. Dr. Know does not wish to   
    > be detected, so he supplies hallucinations that are coherent,   
    > complete, and systematic. Indeed, the hallucinations he produced in us   
    > are a PERFECT COUNTERFEIT OF REALITY.   
    >   
    > Our experiences fulfill our expectations and contain no more surprises   
    > than we would expect from reality. But is it not reality we   
    > experience; our perceptual beliefs about the world are quite mistaken,   
    > for the source of our experiences is a mere machine, the braino, which   
    > creates hallutionations. In such a predicament we might have just the   
    > sort of perceptual beliefs we now have, based on experiences exactly   
    > similar to those we now have. But our perceptual beliefs would be   
    > altogether false.   
    >   
    > The imagined situation is exactly similar to ours with respect to the   
    > reasons or evidence we would have for our perceptual beliefs.   
    > Experience is virtually the same in both cases. Consequently, if we   
    > lack knowledge in one situation, we must surely lack it in the other.   
    > Obviously, we lack knowledge when we are controlled by the braino, for   
    > then our perceptual beliefs are false. Hence, we also lack knowledge   
    > in our present situation. More precisely, our perceptual beliefs fail   
    > to constitute knowledge in either case.   
    >   
    > We believe that we are not controlled by such a machine, and if we are   
    > fortunate in this belief, then no doubt many of our perceptual beliefs   
    > are true. It is, however, good fortune and not good evidence that we   
    > should thank for correctness of these beliefs.   
    >   
    > We are just lucky if there is no Dr. Know controlling us with a   
    > braino; and from that good fortune may result the further good fortune   
    > that most of our perceptual beliefs are true. it is just a matter of   
    > luck, however, and nothing epistemologically more glorious than that.   
      
      
   --   
   I ask, becos I'm curious.   
      
   Just answer the damn question, not the questioner!  Don't   
   presume.  My personal matters/beliefs are none of your   
   business.  I ask, you answer.  If you think I am stupid,   
   you have already proven that you are stupid, not me.  If   
   you don't know the answer, can you please "pass" to other   
   people to answer?  thanks.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)